I just saw Luzerne's TheraBlue lens.

[drk]

Yeah, I have to build my own and stop letting VSP run it.

[Uilleann]

Bazinga!

[Chris Ryser]

Full 100% absorption <--------------------> from 280 nm to 535 nm

[Judy Canty]

I invite all of you to visit our booth at Vision Expo West to see TheraBlue for yourselves. LP 4090

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Thanks again the Luzerne guys in my 2 visits or was it 3? Anyway got good info from those nice guys and a look at the new lens, which has a slight yellow color to it, similar to the UV++ lens I saw at the Conant booth, and as a result of these and other conversations am definitely moving toward 1.56 unless someone tells me a good reason to not go there.

[Lee H]

Thanks again the Luzerne guys in my 2 visits or was it 3? Anyway got good info from those nice guys and a look at the new lens, which has a slight yellow color to it, similar to the UV++ lens I saw at the Conant booth, and as a result of these and other conversations am definitely moving toward 1.56 unless someone tells me a good reason to not go there.

It was was good meeting you Dr. Stacy, thank you for stopping by our booth!

[Chris Ryser]

Anyway got good info from those nice guys and a look at the new lens, which has a slight yellow color to it, similar to the UV++ lens I saw at the Conant booth, and as a result of these and other conversations am definitely moving toward 1.56 unless someone tells me a good reason to not go there.

So finally whoever makes the original lenses has realized that you need a color to neutralize another visible color that transmits the lens, and not just reflect it.

It is an old fact, we know since the early 1980s that if you have UV protection up to 400 nm the lenses have a slight yellowish tinge.
The clear UV reatments that have been the most popular ones stop at 380 nm.

So now it boils down to the basics. How much more cost these lenses to the optical retailer, and what would it cost by doing just the plain UV 400 treatment, or just add more colors to the full 400 nm or and even go higher up in cutting blue light, which can be done in your in house lab at probably huge savings in cost and time.

These days you can even tint any tintable high index lens in a few short minutes in the microwave.

[Diane]

I was at VEW and took time to go look. It is the material, not the color. I believe that we should take our heads out of the sand (or the past). Blue light is a real threat, and our industry is responding. I was hoping to see my good friend Judy. The first generation of lenses / coatings that filter blue light have started the industrial revolution. I believe that we are now moving positively forward. Good technology.

Diane

[Judy Canty]

I wish I could have been there too Diane! I know it was a great show and I am also happy that some OB members visited our booth to see this product up close.

[Chris Ryser]

Anyway got good info from those nice guys and a look at the new lens, which has a slight yellow color to it, similar to the UV++ lens I saw at the Conant booth, and as a result of these and other conversations am definitely moving toward 1.56 unless someone tells me a good reason to not go there.

I was at VEW and took time to go look. It is the material, not the color. I believe that we should take our heads out of the sand (or the past).

The yellowish color neutralizes the blue light around the 400 nm mark (visible blue) and that is a fact now, as it was then. It also makes no difference if the yellow was added to the lens material before casting the lens or afterwards, it is there and seems to work now, as it did then.

Lens manufacturers started to push UV absorbing lenses in the early 1980's, and dye manufacturers came up with UV solutions you could do in the dye pot, or even in the Microwave in your own in house lab and save a ton of money.

If a Vision Ease would add a 400 nm UV absorber to their Polycarbonate raw material the would have the same yellowish tinge effect and absorb right up to 400 nm.

This not having the head in the sand, this is all a repeat of history as it always does and a "deja vue".

[Judy Canty]

Attachment 12341Chris, have you seen the lens yet or are you guessing based on old information? The top pair are my TheraBlue. The bottom pair are my BluTech. The difference in depth of color is noticeable.

[Chris Ryser]

Chris, have you seen the lens yet or are you guessing based on old information? The top pair are my TheraBlue. The bottom pair are my BluTech. The difference in depth of color is noticeable.

Judy, Your yellowish top Thera Blue are yellowish, and will most probably absorb to 400 nm,, while the bottom one, Blue Tech has added some more orange-red which will cut more visible blue light. As I have not measured this lens in the spectrometer I do not know how far it will go.

By reducing transmission of visible blue light you will get a noticeable increase of contrast, that is a fact.

However this is no new science. It can be done in any dye pot or Microwave with the right products. This is all based on information I have collected over the years and is no new science whatsoever.

[Judy Canty]

Theory is the same. Delivery system is different.

[AngeHamm]

Theory is the same. Delivery system is different.

+1. TheraBlue is not comparable to any HEV-blue-blocking technology I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot of it.

[EyeCare Rich]

Theory is the same. Delivery system is different.

This is when I wish there was a LIKE button! Nice post Judy. I didn't stop by your booth Judy, but I did stop by the Matsui booth and saw the lens material in question on this thread. Very impressive! I don't know why people have so much trouble with change. I say, move with change, or become extinct! Thanks for showing us some change Judy, I appreciate it.

[MikeAurelius]

Instead of arguing about whether the lens is clear or not, how about changing the terminology to: is the lens "water white"/"transparent white against a white background" or does it have an obvious color?

If the discussion is based on comparison to a clear glass lens or an untreated CR-39 lens, it's blatantly obvious that the "TheraBlue" lens definitely *HAS* color to it. The only way to remove color from a lens and still block a certain amount of UV is to shift the 50 percentile filtration back towards 380 nm. Once 50% or more of light over 400 nm is being removed, the lens is going to have a color to it, this is basic, un-mutable physics. Whether that color is lighter or darker is not the point, it is that obvious FACT that there is a noticeable color to the lens.

[Judy Canty]

Semantics.

vir·tu·al
ˈvərCH(əw)əl/
adjective
adjective: virtual

• almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition.
  "the virtual absence of border controls"
  

  synonyms:

  effective, in effect, near, near enough, essential, practical, to all intents and purposes "a virtual guarantee"

  
  
  
  
  • Computing
    not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
    "a virtual computer"
    

    synonyms:

    simulated, artificial, imitation, make-believe; Morecomputer-generated, online, virtual reality "a virtual shopping environment"

    
    
    
    
  • carried out, accessed, or stored by means of a computer, especially over a network.
    "a virtual library"
    
    
  
  
  
  
  

[Diane]

The yellowish color neutralizes the blue light around the 400 nm mark (visible blue) and that is a fact now, as it was then. It also makes no difference if the yellow was added to the lens material before casting the lens or afterwards, it is there and seems to work now, as it did then.

Lens manufacturers started to push UV absorbing lenses in the early 1980's, and dye manufacturers came up with UV solutions you could do in the dye pot, or even in the Microwave in your own in house lab and save a ton of money.

If a Vision Ease would add a 400 nm UV absorber to their Polycarbonate raw material the would have the same yellowish tinge effect and absorb right up to 400 nm.

This not having the head in the sand, this is all a repeat of history as it always does and a "deja vue".

I will say "head in the sand". I have been around a while also, but I look at product and the documentation and then judge it. ALMOST isn't quite clear and I don't think Judy ever said completely clear. I won't argue, but don't judge based upon "OLD" knowledge.

I can understand your wanting to "sell" your dyes.

Diane

[Lee H]

I will say "head in the sand". I have been around a while also, but I look at product and the documentation and then judge it. ALMOST isn't quite clear and I don't think Judy ever said completely clear. I won't argue, but don't judge based upon "OLD" knowledge.

I can understand your wanting to "sell" your dyes.

Diane

Amen Diane!
It was really good meeting you at VEW

[MikeAurelius]

Semantics.

No. Simple, unassailable logic.

The lens is either white (clear) or it is not. Per the picture, it is not. And not one single weasel word will remove the logic of the statement.

Now, that said, you could always go back and MODIFY what has been written by the sales wonks about the lens, to say perhaps that it is a very very pale shade of light yellow. But of course, that would totally destroy the use of semantics to get around the logic of clear/not clear, right?

[Diane]

Amen Diane!
It was really good meeting you at VEW

Good meeting you as well Lee.

Diane

[Lee H]

It has a very slight tint, 2%. At VEW, most couldnt believe it when I told them I was wearing TheraBlue. With that being said, its very obvious when someone is wearing any of the other products on the market whether coatings or substrates. I happen to wear most all of them (Blutech Indoor, BluTech OutDoor, Prevencia, TechShield, ReCharge, and TheraBlue). I happen to like them all. With that being said, a percentage of people prefer a lens that is clear. With TheraBlue, these people now have an option. Qne product is not for all people. Some believe the studies showing retinal cell damage, some are skeptical, and some think it is and will always be snake oil. I hope I am wrong but, I believe there will be peer reviewed studies showing a link to heavy blue light exposure and AMD. There are several non sponsored studies showing there is definitely retina damage caused by blue light, especially in the 420nm range. Will this damage lead to the early onset of AMD? I sincerely hope that's not the case. As for me and my family, we will wear lenses that limit the transmission of blue light. . As for my ECP clents, I will continue to present the options and let them make up their own minds. The bottom line is for those that believe they need to protect their retina, they now have another option.

Peace

[Judy Canty]

Thanks Lee. Peace out.

[RT]

There are several non sponsored studies showing there is definitely retin damage cause by blue light, especially in the 420nm range.

Do you have a link to one of those studies? According to the blue light hazard function in ANSI Z87.1, peak blue light hazard is at 435 to 440 nm. Less than 19% of the total blue light hazard is at 420 nm or less, and less than 1.5% is at 400 nm or less.

[Lee H]

Below is one I was referring to.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/bc4320137eb4...&alloworigin=1

there are other reference at the end of the article

here are a few other "reads" I have enjoyed as I am trying to absorb as much information as possible:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/stayin...as-a-dark-side

http://www.wjgnet.com/2218-6239/full/v4/i3/29.htm

Zhou/Sparrow study published in Optometry and Vision Science 2011 Vol 88
i do not have the link but it is easy to google.


AMD study...not anything to do with blue light but good information
http://www.schepens.harvard.edu/rest...rch-story.html


If you have any good additional reads, I would love to check them out. Thanks in advance

Lee